Arguably more successful is Abraham Lincoln. Though, it might be more accurate to say that the newly formed Republican party didn't kill the Whig party; rather the Whig party killed itself due to not listening to their constituents (which seems pretty relevant to our current situation)

If the voters are too apathetic to what the DNC is offering, the thought of abandoning them for something that is much more popular isn't a contradictory prospect. Having an enthusiasm problem so big that trump was able to be elected twice kinda points to the fact that people want something else.

Just superglue a neodymium magnet to the bottom of your bike shoe and hover it over the sensor lines in front of the stop light.

people whose politics is premised on empathy

You must not have read this part. Republican politics don’t rely on empathy, but democratic policy supposedly does, thus less turnout for a less empathetic democratic candidate.

But you clearly used a slur that was removed

Ohh gotcha! I do think images would be fine if there was some way to verify original content since there are some truly amazing creators out there. But yeah, that'd likely require constant moderation.

Choosing current republicans and current democrats is choosing the weapon to be used against you and especially against minorities. Both parties choose to uphold a system that relies on "winners" and "losers" to exist, which makes both of them willing to use minorities as a cost of maintaining profits and systemic power. Why is it acceptable to think it is better to choose the less lethal weapon instead of doing literally anything else to try to prevent all this systemic violence?

Would you also want to ban URLs even though they are technically just text? I also wonder if a social media site this limited would be able to survive when up against websites that are designed to be as addictive as possible. Actually, how does any non-addictive site compete with that and survive? My only guess is that it'd have to actually make people feel good about themselves and be less lonely. Fight addiction with a better emotion instead.

To be honest, I forgot there is a web version of discord people can use. Also, I guess I didn't go into it because I was being long winded with the rest of my message, but every barrier to entry if you want to sustain a small community has a chance to kill it or limit the addition of great users who would otherwise keep it alive. I'm sure a ton of people would like to join something like lemmy, but don't because the concept of federated servers is a real barrier for those people. Discord feels like a major barrier since you can't really find the kind of community you really want to join since you can't taste test the content of the server before you join. The discord servers I'm in are either based around a community that's already popular and it is an extension of that OR it is a more organized version of a group chat with my friends. I'm sure there are general purpose discord servers that manage to be small and friendly, but they seem really hard to find if you want to find them. It is fine if you want to connect to other people who (for example) all are fans of the same youtube channel, but if there's not that common thread, I'm not seeing how a community like that could start or thrive. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just haven't seen it before. I just think my main gripe against discord is being used by companies for troubleshooting so answers to common problems can't be searched on the web, which is an entirely different issue.

I mean, copypastas would still exist. So long as people are trying to show off on the internet for likes or points, there will be people trying to steal other people's popular content or say the most outlandish things to get a response. You could tackle this by removing likes/points or you could remove the algorithm that gives preferential visibility towards things with the most likes/points/comments. People just don't want to feel lonely and if that part of their brain lights up when they steal jokes and get a ton of likes, maybe the solution is creating a situation that fosters real connection instead of emulating that feeling with of likes and digital attention?

I guess the answer depends on the social media format, right? I think the old school PhpBB forums were peak for interacting with random people online (at least for me). An issue I've always had with things like Reddit and things similar to that is that there's no Avatar and signature to identify people in a conversation. And the forums that I was a part of, a moderator would always pop in to tell people to take it to PMs if there was too much back and forth conversation (or arguments) between 2 people if it got too heated, too personal, and started diverging too much from the main topic.

So, as far as "healthy" goes, I think my opinion is that communities should be more personal and much smaller. Lemmy definitely feels better to reddit and that's likely just due to the size difference and the fact that more of a percentage of us are real people and aren't part of some marketing campaign or karma farming bots. That way, there's more of a sense of community and people can remember your name from past posts/comments. If your "home" on the internet is slow and small, you won't feel the need to scroll endlessly since you can catch up to content.

As far as format goes, I like the idea of a feed (no text limit) where you can see generally what people are up to recently, but there's also topics people can follow that function more like forums. So then the question becomes should communities have artificially limited user counts and see everything (like Path was)? Or should there be a friends list so you only see things your friends are saying and the comments to those posts like facebook? I'm leaning towards artificially limited user counts since it guarantees a small and slow internet "home". And it's gotta be web based, unlike Discord communities.

Assuming you're liberal, my god this sounds straight out of the republican "stupid things to say when someone doesn't fellate America" playbook.

So democrats should adopt even more conservative views to avoid attack ads? Maybe they should focus on what the democratic base wants rather than the opinions of people who would never vote democrat.

I hear that's what historians are saying

All those people who weren’t motivated enough to vote this time won’t hear your scapegoating of muslim voters. You’re just shooting the messenger.

I don't think Cheney cost Harris any voters because the vast majority of people who didn't vote for Harris probably don't know and don't care who Cheney is. But celebrating the Cheney endorsement is a symptom of a campaign that is thoroughly unexciting and establishment. People who don't follow politics aren't word-of-mouth'd into being excited for something new and hopeful. Instead of democrats' excitement about the promises of a new candidate, the only word on their lips was Trump, which won't work a second time if the apolitical person's world didn't change negatively the last time trump was president.

Democrats don't have to say any slurs to uphold a racist/sexist system. Send out a memo condemning racism while increasing police funding and surveillance. Tokenize people in their cabinet with a smile and a hashtag while bombing, destabilizing, and plundering the global south. Our hierarchical and white supremacist systems are so embedded in our society, it's assumed to be the natural order of things.

I’m still using a (Son) dynamo Busch and Müller light from a decade ago on my touring bike. It’s so reliable and the beam pattern is better than on my car. I also have schwalbe marathons and ortlieb panniers on that bike. Such a good setup for a bike built like a tank. It might be fully German if it wasn’t a Fuji with a Shimano groupset and Brooks saddle.